I am flabbergasted (I’ve been waiting to use that word!) at the opportunities God has given me over the past ten years to travel across Africa. I honestly think that those who know me best would vouch for the fact that it’s nothing I have done or am capable of doing that has gotten me there. For years, donors from across America have pooled their resources that God might use an unequipped student to bring light to the darkest continent known to man.
The things I’ve seen, the conversations I’ve had, and the people God has placed in my path have all led me to this place in my life. If you were to ask me the single greatest need of Africa, the word “education” would spring from my lips before you finished your question. Millions upon millions of children have never had a chance to be educated that they might succeed in life. We wonder why Africa is in shambles and continues to suffer despite the billions of dollars we throw at it. While the majority of the world does good by focusing on the immediate needs, we have largely failed to address Africa’s ability to begin building it’s future.
I have come to the conclusion that I will devote my life to educating children in third-world countries. These places, specifically Africa, will never be able to stand on their own without a rising generation of educated leaders who are grounded in Biblical morals. I wish I had an idea of what this will look like, but I do not. The option I am currently pursuing is an organization which would focus specifically on this issue. It is not yet established, for it is only a dream. However, I have seen dreams turn into realities when there is a team behind them.
As I continue to meet with individuals that I believe will be key players in this endeavor, I ask you to consider your part. Could this be the opportunity your heart has been waiting for? I believe we all have an innate desire to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. Don’t you think changing the course of an entire country qualifies? If you do, you might be wondering what a good next step might be. On the right side of this blog, you’ll find a white box where you can enter your email address. Simple, huh? Type yours in there, and I’ll keep you updated. No spam, no garble. Just quick, simple updates on progress and how you can be involved.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Sudan in the Making (part II)
The clock reads 3:45 AM, and although my eyes are just starting to get heavy, my mind continues to race about the upcoming referendum. An entire country splitting down the middle - millions of animistic tribal men and women voting to separate themselves from the Islamic north. Along with the majority of others, I believe that 2011 will give birth to the world’s newest country. Whether or not it will happen peacefully remains to be seen...
In this entry, I promised to briefly discuss a few possible outcomes of the referendum. They need not be lengthy, just enough to stir you to pray. It’s my prayer that your eyes will be opened to the fact that this could be the greatest event in the history of Sudan - or it could be the most catastrophic. A country could be born, or a country could be slaughtered.
Option one: the north delays the vote in attempt to denounce it. Most Sudanese think the vote will go ahead as planned, but don’t count this out. I can promise you one thing: this vote is the last thing Sudanese president al-Bashir wants to happen. He’ll do anything in his sneaky power to de-rail it. He’ll make excuses about irregularities, mistakes, etc. It will be up to the international community to pile on the pressure to assure this doesn’t happen.
Option two: The vote is cast, and it is determined that the southern portion of Sudan is not willing to secede from the north. Ralph Nader will be elected President before this happens. Out of all of the Sudanese men I’ve spoken with, all agree that their country wants secession. This option is highly unlikely.
Option three: secession is voted in, and southern Sudan peacefully becomes it’s own country. This is certainly the ideal situation. President al-Bashir (Sudan’s wanted president) says his National Congress Party (NCP) is ready and willing to accept the outcome peacefully. He says “We are committed to accept the results whether the vote leads to unity or secession as long as the referendum is conducted in a free, fair and transparent manner.” While this option is certainly possible, I would venture to say it isn’t the most likely. As discussed in an earlier post, the southern portion of Sudan holds 80% of the country’s oil in its ground. Why would a corrupt president give these resources up so easily? Well, this is where the strategy comes in. Should the south vote to secede, they would be WISE to offer a generous portion of the oil to the north. As valuable as the income from this oil will be to rebuilding southern Sudan, it will be equally valuable in keeping the north happy. In short, if the south votes to secede and agrees to share their resources with the north, I believe in return, they’ll be given peace from the north. For the most part, anyways...
Option four: secession is voted in, and the north retaliates. I save this for last because I want this to really sink in. The south wants religious freedom (read: for the north to stop bullying them with Islam). The north wants to control the south, mainly because of the resources. The south is also a source of women and child sex slaves for the Muslims of northern Sudan. If the south votes to secede, al-Bashir and his “government” could view this as (lots of) money slipping through their fingers. What does a bully do when the weak fights back? He fights harder. For the most part, the Arab-led north has more military resources. Some argue they have the backing of several Egyptian militia groups, and even connections to the middle east terrorist cells we Americans are too familiar with. If they see their monetary sources begin to retreat, they could very well pursue - violently.
When observing this possibility, many officials are preparing for the worst. Aid organizations are already making preparations to be on the ground in southern Sudan to help. Perhaps you’ve seen George Clooney in the news lately trying to raise awareness for the situation. He’s doing so because he believes this catastrophe is, for lack of a better word, coming. His words: "If you knew a tsunami, or Katrina or a Haiti earthquake was coming, what would you do to save people?"
I’ll put it bluntly - this outcome involves outright genocide. Islam is a religion of violence. As if there isn’t enough war in Sudan already, this vote could very well light a match under a gasoline-soaked situation. If truthful reports make it to your television, you’ll hear of thousands being murdered. Military groups from the north will go on rampages - burning villages, killing men, raping women, and taking children into slavery. There are hundreds of thousands of southern Sudanese refugees currently living in the north. Some have made their way home for the vote - but others have stayed. What will happen to them? I shudder to think.
I hope these summaries have opened your eyes a little more to the situation. Please, pray for the referendum vote on January 9, 2011. A situation like this can only have a positive outcome by the grace and mercy of the Creator of the universe.
In this entry, I promised to briefly discuss a few possible outcomes of the referendum. They need not be lengthy, just enough to stir you to pray. It’s my prayer that your eyes will be opened to the fact that this could be the greatest event in the history of Sudan - or it could be the most catastrophic. A country could be born, or a country could be slaughtered.
Option one: the north delays the vote in attempt to denounce it. Most Sudanese think the vote will go ahead as planned, but don’t count this out. I can promise you one thing: this vote is the last thing Sudanese president al-Bashir wants to happen. He’ll do anything in his sneaky power to de-rail it. He’ll make excuses about irregularities, mistakes, etc. It will be up to the international community to pile on the pressure to assure this doesn’t happen.
Option two: The vote is cast, and it is determined that the southern portion of Sudan is not willing to secede from the north. Ralph Nader will be elected President before this happens. Out of all of the Sudanese men I’ve spoken with, all agree that their country wants secession. This option is highly unlikely.
Option three: secession is voted in, and southern Sudan peacefully becomes it’s own country. This is certainly the ideal situation. President al-Bashir (Sudan’s wanted president) says his National Congress Party (NCP) is ready and willing to accept the outcome peacefully. He says “We are committed to accept the results whether the vote leads to unity or secession as long as the referendum is conducted in a free, fair and transparent manner.” While this option is certainly possible, I would venture to say it isn’t the most likely. As discussed in an earlier post, the southern portion of Sudan holds 80% of the country’s oil in its ground. Why would a corrupt president give these resources up so easily? Well, this is where the strategy comes in. Should the south vote to secede, they would be WISE to offer a generous portion of the oil to the north. As valuable as the income from this oil will be to rebuilding southern Sudan, it will be equally valuable in keeping the north happy. In short, if the south votes to secede and agrees to share their resources with the north, I believe in return, they’ll be given peace from the north. For the most part, anyways...
Option four: secession is voted in, and the north retaliates. I save this for last because I want this to really sink in. The south wants religious freedom (read: for the north to stop bullying them with Islam). The north wants to control the south, mainly because of the resources. The south is also a source of women and child sex slaves for the Muslims of northern Sudan. If the south votes to secede, al-Bashir and his “government” could view this as (lots of) money slipping through their fingers. What does a bully do when the weak fights back? He fights harder. For the most part, the Arab-led north has more military resources. Some argue they have the backing of several Egyptian militia groups, and even connections to the middle east terrorist cells we Americans are too familiar with. If they see their monetary sources begin to retreat, they could very well pursue - violently.
When observing this possibility, many officials are preparing for the worst. Aid organizations are already making preparations to be on the ground in southern Sudan to help. Perhaps you’ve seen George Clooney in the news lately trying to raise awareness for the situation. He’s doing so because he believes this catastrophe is, for lack of a better word, coming. His words: "If you knew a tsunami, or Katrina or a Haiti earthquake was coming, what would you do to save people?"
I’ll put it bluntly - this outcome involves outright genocide. Islam is a religion of violence. As if there isn’t enough war in Sudan already, this vote could very well light a match under a gasoline-soaked situation. If truthful reports make it to your television, you’ll hear of thousands being murdered. Military groups from the north will go on rampages - burning villages, killing men, raping women, and taking children into slavery. There are hundreds of thousands of southern Sudanese refugees currently living in the north. Some have made their way home for the vote - but others have stayed. What will happen to them? I shudder to think.
I hope these summaries have opened your eyes a little more to the situation. Please, pray for the referendum vote on January 9, 2011. A situation like this can only have a positive outcome by the grace and mercy of the Creator of the universe.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Anthropological Thoughts on Sudan
As I continue to follow the developing situation in Sudan, I can’t help but apply the tint of my education to the glass through which I view the situation. After listening to General Sumbieywo (a Sudanese military general in charge of north-south negotiations for the January referendum), a few thoughts come forth.
Predictability has great value in the maintenance of society. A person or group of people is able to function better when he/they can predict the behavior of others. It is much easier for me to drive a car on the road because I am able to predict that other drivers will likely stay to their side of the road and obey traffic laws. Because predictability is so vital here, we give tickets and fines to those breaking the norm.
When it comes to the future of Sudan, members of the Center for Strategic and International Studies agree that there is, in fact, little predictability when it comes to the future of that country. A foggy future can lead to social unrest quite quickly, especially in a fragile, war-torn environment. The minds of the people could automatically fear the worst, because that is what they are used to. In fearing the worst, they may begin to prematurely act as if the worst possible scenario is already underway. In Sudan, this situation would almost certainly be that the south votes to succeed, and the north retaliates. We’ll examine this possibility in my next post. A premature reaction to this possible outcome might look like mass migrations from the possible areas of a future border between the north and the south. Southern refugees currently in the northern part of Sudan may begin to panic.
The second thought I have pertains to a phrase known in anthropology as restraint of power. In his book The Psychology of Behavior Exchange, K. J. Gergen writes “If the stronger fully exercises his power, he may be forced into the undesirable activity of monitoring the behavior of the less powerful. The less powerful, on the other hand, is likely to experience poorer outcomes (less satisfaction) should power be used to dictate all his actions.”
In the case of Sudan, the north is the obvious power holder. The southern part of the country houses 80% of the nation’s oil resources. This can be viewed as a bargaining chip for the south, or a reason for war and oppression by the north. In the case of the later, the south will be oppressed and will continue to develop as it does now - hardly at all. However, the concept of power retention is a possibility here, and one that could very possibly save thousands of lives. Take an assembly line for example. Restraint of power is when the management resists the temptation to be controlling and allows assembly-line workers to be involved in decision making processes. Studies show that in this situation, productivity goes up. For a worker to participate in this process, it requires restraint of power on the part of management. This restraint of power becomes beneficial for both parties. If something is beneficial in a society, it becomes the norm.
Just as management has the decision-making power, the workers do the actual production of the product. Northern Sudan may have the power, but the south has the oil. The Islamic north would be wise to recognize that force is not always the most beneficial. In case you are wondering - yes, I am advocating for the Islamic, power-hungry north. Why? Because if they play their cards right, they can maximize their benefits. And why in the world would I want a nation of power-hungry, man-slaughtering Muslims to succeed? Because if they decide to proceed in a peaceful, “restraint of power” way, lives will be saved and the south will have a chance to build a proper country for the first time in history. Sometimes the lesser of evils must take the front seat in the interest of saving innocent lives.
In my next post this week, we’ll examine some possible outcomes of the January 9 referendum. In the meantime, visit my Facebook page and leave your opinion there. www.facebook.com/joshua.hamby, or leave a comment below!
Predictability has great value in the maintenance of society. A person or group of people is able to function better when he/they can predict the behavior of others. It is much easier for me to drive a car on the road because I am able to predict that other drivers will likely stay to their side of the road and obey traffic laws. Because predictability is so vital here, we give tickets and fines to those breaking the norm.
When it comes to the future of Sudan, members of the Center for Strategic and International Studies agree that there is, in fact, little predictability when it comes to the future of that country. A foggy future can lead to social unrest quite quickly, especially in a fragile, war-torn environment. The minds of the people could automatically fear the worst, because that is what they are used to. In fearing the worst, they may begin to prematurely act as if the worst possible scenario is already underway. In Sudan, this situation would almost certainly be that the south votes to succeed, and the north retaliates. We’ll examine this possibility in my next post. A premature reaction to this possible outcome might look like mass migrations from the possible areas of a future border between the north and the south. Southern refugees currently in the northern part of Sudan may begin to panic.
The second thought I have pertains to a phrase known in anthropology as restraint of power. In his book The Psychology of Behavior Exchange, K. J. Gergen writes “If the stronger fully exercises his power, he may be forced into the undesirable activity of monitoring the behavior of the less powerful. The less powerful, on the other hand, is likely to experience poorer outcomes (less satisfaction) should power be used to dictate all his actions.”
In the case of Sudan, the north is the obvious power holder. The southern part of the country houses 80% of the nation’s oil resources. This can be viewed as a bargaining chip for the south, or a reason for war and oppression by the north. In the case of the later, the south will be oppressed and will continue to develop as it does now - hardly at all. However, the concept of power retention is a possibility here, and one that could very possibly save thousands of lives. Take an assembly line for example. Restraint of power is when the management resists the temptation to be controlling and allows assembly-line workers to be involved in decision making processes. Studies show that in this situation, productivity goes up. For a worker to participate in this process, it requires restraint of power on the part of management. This restraint of power becomes beneficial for both parties. If something is beneficial in a society, it becomes the norm.
Just as management has the decision-making power, the workers do the actual production of the product. Northern Sudan may have the power, but the south has the oil. The Islamic north would be wise to recognize that force is not always the most beneficial. In case you are wondering - yes, I am advocating for the Islamic, power-hungry north. Why? Because if they play their cards right, they can maximize their benefits. And why in the world would I want a nation of power-hungry, man-slaughtering Muslims to succeed? Because if they decide to proceed in a peaceful, “restraint of power” way, lives will be saved and the south will have a chance to build a proper country for the first time in history. Sometimes the lesser of evils must take the front seat in the interest of saving innocent lives.
In my next post this week, we’ll examine some possible outcomes of the January 9 referendum. In the meantime, visit my Facebook page and leave your opinion there. www.facebook.com/joshua.hamby, or leave a comment below!
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Sudan in the Making (part I)...
On January 9, 2011, the largest country in Africa will climb onto the political chopping block. The southern region of the country will vote on whether or not it wants to succeed from the north. The logistical planning of this event is in chaos. The country’s president has a record with the International Criminal Court - genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The lives of millions of innocent men, women, and children all over that land are at risk.
Sudan comes to the table dragging a ridiculous amount of political and humanitarian baggage. When the British ran Sudan as a colony, they administered the northern part of the country differently than the south. This was because the south looked more like what you and I think of as Africa - it was similar to Uganda and Kenya. The north was more of a knock off from Egypt - the population was largely Arab and Islamic (think: middle east). How anyone thought this would be a good combination for a common country is beyond me.
The Arab north pressured Britain to combine the two regions. They gave in, and Arabic became the national language. More governmental power was given to the north, and the south got the short end of the stick. Sudan began it’s process of independence from the UK and Egypt in 1953, and by 1956, it was official. However, a civil car between the Arab-led north and the south had broken out a year earlier in 1955 that would last until ’72. Notice that Sudan’s very foundations were built on civil war.
In 1972, the Addis Ababa Agreement led to a ten year hiatus of the war between the north and the south. However, in 1983, the national government (controlled mostly by the north) began forcing Islamization on the country and pushed for the institution of Sharia Law. This wreaked havoc on the country and threw it into a tailspin of war. Since then, northern violence has been directed at the people of southern Sudan. Hundreds of thousands of southern Sudanese women and children have been taken into captivity, mainly into the North.
Meanwhile in 2003, the western region of Darfur is stirring with unrest. A rebel group begins to accuse the central government of neglecting their region. As a reaction, this rebel group initiates an ethnic cleansing of sorts in the region of Darfur. I’m sure you’ve heard about this particular conflict on the news in recent years. Peace agreements in the region have been semi-successful, but the tension between all parties remains extremely high.
If you’re still with me, I applaud you for wading through the historical jargon. However, I believe knowing where Sudan has been will ultimately lead you to care for it’s future. I trust you now know the grave importance of the January 9 voting in the south. The people of southern Sudan have been the victims of Islamic terror for over 50 years. On January 9, their voice will be heard the world over. Enough is enough.
Part two of “Sudan in the Making” will focus on the possible outcomes of the vote in 2011 and will be published in a few days. I encourage you to come back and learn about the catastrophic risks involved in such a decision.
Please, share this blog with your friends and family. The situation in Sudan needs as much attention as it can get. Millions of lives depend on it.
Sudan comes to the table dragging a ridiculous amount of political and humanitarian baggage. When the British ran Sudan as a colony, they administered the northern part of the country differently than the south. This was because the south looked more like what you and I think of as Africa - it was similar to Uganda and Kenya. The north was more of a knock off from Egypt - the population was largely Arab and Islamic (think: middle east). How anyone thought this would be a good combination for a common country is beyond me.
The Arab north pressured Britain to combine the two regions. They gave in, and Arabic became the national language. More governmental power was given to the north, and the south got the short end of the stick. Sudan began it’s process of independence from the UK and Egypt in 1953, and by 1956, it was official. However, a civil car between the Arab-led north and the south had broken out a year earlier in 1955 that would last until ’72. Notice that Sudan’s very foundations were built on civil war.
In 1972, the Addis Ababa Agreement led to a ten year hiatus of the war between the north and the south. However, in 1983, the national government (controlled mostly by the north) began forcing Islamization on the country and pushed for the institution of Sharia Law. This wreaked havoc on the country and threw it into a tailspin of war. Since then, northern violence has been directed at the people of southern Sudan. Hundreds of thousands of southern Sudanese women and children have been taken into captivity, mainly into the North.
Meanwhile in 2003, the western region of Darfur is stirring with unrest. A rebel group begins to accuse the central government of neglecting their region. As a reaction, this rebel group initiates an ethnic cleansing of sorts in the region of Darfur. I’m sure you’ve heard about this particular conflict on the news in recent years. Peace agreements in the region have been semi-successful, but the tension between all parties remains extremely high.
If you’re still with me, I applaud you for wading through the historical jargon. However, I believe knowing where Sudan has been will ultimately lead you to care for it’s future. I trust you now know the grave importance of the January 9 voting in the south. The people of southern Sudan have been the victims of Islamic terror for over 50 years. On January 9, their voice will be heard the world over. Enough is enough.
Part two of “Sudan in the Making” will focus on the possible outcomes of the vote in 2011 and will be published in a few days. I encourage you to come back and learn about the catastrophic risks involved in such a decision.
Please, share this blog with your friends and family. The situation in Sudan needs as much attention as it can get. Millions of lives depend on it.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The Next Chapter...
I used to want to change the world. In high school; even throughout the majority of my college career, I wanted to do something big for Jesus. I wanted to take the Gospel into places where it had never gone before. I wanted to be known for changing the future of an entire country. I wanted to be written about in history books centuries from now.
In my flesh, I still want those things. Yet, as I study the lives of some of the greatest world-changers for Christ, I have (thankfully) drifted away from that mentality.
William Carey, known as the “Father of Modern Missions”, was a shoemaker with a middle school education. After overcoming endless barriers, he arrived with his wife in Calcutta, India on November 19, 1793. After seven years, the deterioration of his wife’s mind, disease and family deaths, Carey saw his first convert for Christ. His dedication sustained him on the field for 40 years. Among many other achievements, Carey founded Serampore College, the first college in Asia’s history to award a degree. Carey called out to a fellow missionary on his death bed: “Dr. Duff! You have been speaking about Dr. Carey. When I am gone, say nothing about Dr. Carey - speak about Dr. Carey’s God.”
Men like William Carey, Hudson Taylor, and Adoniram Judson are worthy role models for a reason. They didn’t desire fame, fortune, or even to do good things. They simply wanted to serve. More than anything, they wanted to be a tool in the hands of a loving God, passionate for the unreached of the world. They wanted God to be known more than they wanted to be known themselves.
As I enter the next chapter of my life, that is my prayer. That the one desire of my heart would be that God would use an unqualified servant like me for His glory. In time, we will begin to see what that looks like. God has given me an unquenchable passion to use education to take the Gospel to the unreached people of this world. I want to devote my life to giving children the opportunity to succeed in this world through education, and through the Gospel, live eternally in the next. I feel the Lord is calling me to start this project in Southern Sudan. More about that later.
I’d like to think that God will use me in this new chapter of life to influence others to adopt a similar mentality. I’m so guilty of getting caught up my own reputation, that I forget to give sole credit to my Creator. May His name be the only name that resounds in the hearts of men when my days on Earth are no more.
In my flesh, I still want those things. Yet, as I study the lives of some of the greatest world-changers for Christ, I have (thankfully) drifted away from that mentality.
William Carey, known as the “Father of Modern Missions”, was a shoemaker with a middle school education. After overcoming endless barriers, he arrived with his wife in Calcutta, India on November 19, 1793. After seven years, the deterioration of his wife’s mind, disease and family deaths, Carey saw his first convert for Christ. His dedication sustained him on the field for 40 years. Among many other achievements, Carey founded Serampore College, the first college in Asia’s history to award a degree. Carey called out to a fellow missionary on his death bed: “Dr. Duff! You have been speaking about Dr. Carey. When I am gone, say nothing about Dr. Carey - speak about Dr. Carey’s God.”
Men like William Carey, Hudson Taylor, and Adoniram Judson are worthy role models for a reason. They didn’t desire fame, fortune, or even to do good things. They simply wanted to serve. More than anything, they wanted to be a tool in the hands of a loving God, passionate for the unreached of the world. They wanted God to be known more than they wanted to be known themselves.
As I enter the next chapter of my life, that is my prayer. That the one desire of my heart would be that God would use an unqualified servant like me for His glory. In time, we will begin to see what that looks like. God has given me an unquenchable passion to use education to take the Gospel to the unreached people of this world. I want to devote my life to giving children the opportunity to succeed in this world through education, and through the Gospel, live eternally in the next. I feel the Lord is calling me to start this project in Southern Sudan. More about that later.
I’d like to think that God will use me in this new chapter of life to influence others to adopt a similar mentality. I’m so guilty of getting caught up my own reputation, that I forget to give sole credit to my Creator. May His name be the only name that resounds in the hearts of men when my days on Earth are no more.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)